Bloom

The applicant, Parkland Corporation, sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the respondent gas station operator from selling fuel purchased from third parties, in breach of their consignment and branding agreement.

The court applied the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of contractual breach.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm to its business model and market share, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault.

The sentencing judge found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered THC to the victim to render her compliant.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's young child, against the offender's positive rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 18 months' incarceration along with ancillary orders.

The moving parties, including the Crown and two police officers, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions for negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental harm, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a police investigation into alleged sexual assaults by two minor plaintiffs, which resulted in criminal charges that were later stayed after the minors completed counselling.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges, and there was no evidence supporting the other tort claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

Following a trial regarding four real estate transactions where the plaintiffs achieved substantial success, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $579,834.02 on a full indemnity basis, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct and misrepresentations, while the defendants argued for a lower amount.

Applying principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $400,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiffs and defendants engaged in a series of real estate transactions involving four properties, operating largely on oral agreements.

Disputes arose regarding the beneficial ownership of the properties and claims for renovation work performed by the defendants.

The court applied principles of oral contract formation and resulting trust to determine the parties' respective interests based on their financial contributions.

The court found largely in favour of the plaintiffs, granting them sole ownership of two properties, a majority interest in a third, and a half interest in the fourth, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for defective renovation work.

The defendant owner of a motor vehicle moved for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action arising from a collision in a bar parking lot.

The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's vehicle, which had been left idling by the defendant's cousin and was allegedly stolen by an unknown thief.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the driver's identity, concluding the driver was a thief.

Consequently, the court held the owner was not liable under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act as the vehicle was taken without consent, nor at common law as no duty of care was owed.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $340,859.77 owed on a line of credit, and for an order dismissing the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant argued the debt claimed was under a different loan and that the bank breached its contract with his wife, who had guaranteed the loan.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the evidence established there was only one loan and that the defendant had no standing to claim breach of the guarantee contract.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, the counterclaim was dismissed, and full indemnity costs were awarded.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after her daughter suffered a severe laceration to her forehead.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging the accused intentionally injured the child out of frustration.

The accused testified the injury was an accident caused by a malfunctioning highchair.

Applying the principles from Villoroman and W.(D.), the court found that while the accused's testimony was not fully accepted, it left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an inference that the injury was accidental, resulting in an acquittal.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 13-year relationship.

The parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $72,000 per month, finding the applicant established a reasonable case based on the respondent's significant wealth and the parties' standard of living.

The court also awarded $200,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field in the high-conflict litigation, noting the funds were necessary to pay legal and expert professionals.

The defendant general contractor moved to have a subcontractor's construction lien declared expired for failure to preserve it in a timely manner under the Construction Act.

The moving party argued the last bona fide supply of services occurred in December 2019, while the responding party provided uncontradicted affidavit evidence that work continued until February 2020 due to delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the date of the last bona fide supply, as the conflicting evidence and final invoices needed to be tested through cross-examination.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against two defendants on personal guarantees of a corporate loan and a credit card balance.

The defendants argued that bank representatives had assured them their liability was limited to 25% each, contrary to the literal wording of the guarantees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the guarantees, as the defendants' uncontradicted evidence about the bank's representations required credibility assessments.

The court also declined to grant partial summary judgment on the credit card and related fraudulent preference claims due to the risk of inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for $78,600, alleging breach of an oral contract to provide immigration services to a third party.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid immigration services, an unpaid loan, and unpaid rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his evidence and that of his witnesses lacked credibility and documentary support.

The court also dismissed the defendant Depinderdeep Singh's counterclaims for lack of documentary evidence.

However, the court granted the defendant Monisha Singh's counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $16,400, based on a written lease agreement.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the portion of the action seeking relief regarding the transfer of land in Guyana by the deceased to the defendants.

The defendants argued lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and improper service outside Ontario.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the in personam exception for equitable claims, as the plaintiffs alleged undue influence.

The court declined to apply forum non conveniens, noting the parties and key connections were in Ontario or New Jersey, not Guyana.

The court also found service outside Ontario was valid under Rule 17.02(i).

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out claims for damages for conspiracy made in the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendant argued that the Competition Act precludes conspiracy allegations relating to price maintenance, that directing minds cannot conspire with their corporation, that the principle of merger precludes the claims, and that special damages were not properly pleaded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the law on price maintenance conspiracy is unsettled, the directing minds' alleged conduct was tortious in itself, the principle of merger applies at trial rather than the pleadings stage, and pleading the same special damages for both substantive wrongs and conspiracy is sufficient.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought financial disclosure, interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure, exclusive possession, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child support, noting her debilitating spinal condition and the ongoing pandemic.

The respondent's motion for the sale of the home was dismissed, and spousal support was deferred as the respondent was ordered to pay the home's maintenance costs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The applicant moved for an order determining the sum he must pay the respondent to purchase their jointly owned matrimonial home, effectively seeking to vary a previous order that required the home to be listed for sale.

The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale that failed to close.

The court held that, absent an agreement or a formal motion to vary, it lacked jurisdiction to order a transfer of property to the applicant on new terms.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion but updated the timelines in the previous order to facilitate the sale of the home.